International Journal of Communication 8 (2014), 2351-2376 1932–8036/20140005 Musical Counter-Environments: Media Ecology as Art Criticism PHIL ROSE York University, Canada Beginning with an introduction of some of the basic tenets of an intellectual tradition called the media ecology perspective and a description of its general complexion, this article interrogates how the perspective—in tandem with Marshall McLuhan’s notion of how the arts function as “counter-environments”—can be effectively used for art criticism. The discussion emphasizes particularly the cultural study of musical multimedia. I outline the little-known affect-script theory of personality theorist Silvan Tomkins, and suggest how his work not only contributes to the media ecology perspective but can be likewise helpful in decoding musical communication, especially toward the more accurate elucidation of the content of such expression. Keywords: music, media ecology, art criticism, counter-environment, anti-environment, symbolic form, presentational symbolism, affect-script theory Among the most fascinating of intellectual inheritances we have from the 16th century is the word medium, particularly because its various contemporary English language usages always retain an element of the original New Latin definition meaning “middle.” North Americans, for instance, use its adjectival form when they order chicken wings and desire them to be neither hot nor mild, but rather the middle quality between these extremes. In its verbal form, we say that diplomats mediate conflict between two or more parties. When a noun, we designate the medium to be that person who is said to negotiate between the spirits of the dead and the living, or we often use it to refer to that form or material that writers, painters, or composers use when they re-present experience to their audiences. Although we denote the means by which we communicate a medium, the word can also be construed as an agency via which we generally do things. Marshall McLuhan (1964/1994), one of the three primary nodes in the media ecology tradition, according to Lance Strate (2004),1 uses the word in this last sense to describe what he calls “the extensions of man.” In contrast to most animals, which evolve by embodying their technologies (as when they develop complex radar or sonar abilities, for Phil Rose: [email protected] Date submitted: 2013–05–28 1 Strate suggests that the three primary nodes of media ecology are Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, and Walter Ong, and that these nodes also encompass the cities of Toronto, New York, and St. Louis, respectively. Copyright © 2014 (Phil Rose). Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd). Available at http://ijoc.org. 2352 Phil Rose International Journal of Communication 8(2014) instance), with the advent of innovation, the dynamics of human evolution began to be as much a phenomenon of culture as of biology. This is not an uncontroversial perspective, of course.2 But, as McLuhan clarifies, a “medium”—the technological extension of some human organ or faculty—should not be conceived as a type of bridge between humanity and nature but as nature itself.3 His complex usage incorporates the biologist’s sense of the word, which is assigned to any intervening substance, through which impressions are conveyed to the senses—that which constitutes the living organism’s environmental conditions of growth, storage, or transport.4 This biological metaphor likewise guides the thinking of Strate’s second node of media ecology, Neil Postman (1970, 2006), the scholar who formally introduced the term in 1968, and whose students have been central in delineating the patterns of this intellectual tradition—as with Casey Man Kong Lum’s Perspectives on Culture, Technology and Communication: The Media Ecology Tradition (2006) and Strate’s own Echoes and Reflections: On Media Ecology as a Field of Study (2006). In seeking to make my own contribution to this portrait, first I will introduce media ecology as an intellectual tradition and perspective. Next, I will narrow my scope to a consideration of the application of media ecology to art criticism, and then to music as a subset of this wider field. Finally, I will introduce the affect-script theory of Silvan Tomkins and recommend its usefulness from a media ecology perspective as an addition to the existing body of work on art and music criticism. Media Ecology From its inception, a large component of the historical anthropologist’s paradigm has been the study of humans according to the evolvement of their tool usage. Media ecologists sustain this paradigm by taking into account the entire technological apparatus of a culture, along with its profound contributions to that culture’s evolution. Like general systems theory, media ecology holds that the key to understanding systemic organization and complexity is to be found in the study of the relationships among a system’s components, not simply in the analysis of constituent composition. In this regard, Postman (1992) outlines technological change as being neither additive nor subtractive but rather ecological, in the same sense as environmental scientists use the word. Even one significant change generates total change. As an example, he suggests that if we remove caterpillars from a given habitat, we are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars. Rather, we have a new environment and a reconstitution of the conditions of survival, just as in the instance where caterpillars are added to an environment that formerly had none. Postman points out that this is also how the ecology of media works. Particularly concerned with the way that a culture’s inhabitants adapt to the transformed social and cultural environments that new technologies and practices create, Postman’s New York colleague 2 Hear, for instance, the ideas of the evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin (Cayley, 2008). 3 “Darwin thought of man as inside an environment; it never occurred to Darwin that it would be possible to program the environment itself as evolutionary,” writes McLuhan. “Darwin is a literate, nineteenth- century man. He had no intimation of the electronic information circuit or total human environment of information” (McLuhan, 2003, p. 152). 4 For further discussion of the term medium, see Strate (2005, 2008). International Journal of Communication 8 (2014) Media Ecology as Art Criticism 2353 Christine Nystrom (1973) defines media ecology as a field that inquires into the interactions of communications media, technology, technique, and processes with human feeling, thought, value, and behavior. And just as natural ecology emphasizes how the interactions among the elements of our natural milieu can lead to a balanced and healthful environment, media ecology addresses questions related to the maintenance of technological and symbolic equilibrium. On account of the breadth of its field of inquiry, Nystrom has pointed out that the traditional term discipline scarcely applies to the media ecology perspective at all. Instead, it is perhaps more appropriately designated a metadiscipline. Media ecologists devote particular interest to technologies of communication because of the central role that their forms and inherent biases play in a culture’s ongoing construction, perpetuation, and transformation of reality. Postman (1992) describes the dynamic nature of such development and offers a sense of the value of historical consideration: [N]ew technologies compete with old ones—for time, for attention, for money, for prestige, but mostly for dominance of their world-view. This competition is implicit once we acknowledge that a medium contains an ideological bias. It is not merely a matter of tool against tool—the alphabet attacking ideographic writing, the printing press attacking the illuminated manuscript, the photograph attacking the art of painting, television attacking the printed word. When media make war against each other, it is a case of world-views in collision. (p. 16) Of course, this is what, in part, undergirds McLuhan’s famous aphorism “the medium is the message.” I say “in part,” though, because, as Postman (1970) points out elsewhere, any environment is a complex message system that imposes on humans certain ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving. Along with McLuhan and others, as part of the so-called Toronto School of Communication, the Canadian economic historian Harold Innis introduced the concept of “media biases” into modern communication studies, and it is media ecology’s historical analysis of the biases of communication forms that constitutes its humanistic basis. Lum (2006) notes that consideration of the form of a communication medium requires attention to both its symbolic and physical form. The former combines the characteristics of the code in which the medium presents information (analogic vs. digital symbols) and the structures in which symbols are combined (presentational, propositional, or hybrid).5 A medium’s physical form includes the characteristics of the technology that carries the code and the physical requirements it has for encoding, transmitting, storing, retrieving, decoding, and distributing information. Lum lists Nystrom’s helpful generalizations about how the media ecology perspective construes media, communication, and culture: (a) Because of the different symbolic forms in which they encode information, different media have different intellectual and emotional biases. 5 I shall have more